This is, again, a national poll... Howard Dean's 2003 trends were very similar to Hillary's today. Don't expect to see anything different from the national polls (including "character questions") until after January 14th.

If you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is more trustworthy than Barack Obama, then I'm going to guess you don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire, where the campaign is able to diffuse a narrative that's not as blatantly tainted by political prejudice as the national perspective is.

Oh no! *gasp* A poll of "Democrats and Dem-leaning independents"??

Everybody panic!

Or not.

Please. Eric, this:

Also, Hillary now leads Obama in character questions that have been his strong suit, such as "is the most honesty and trustworthy" and "is the most inspiring."

...is not surprising. You're looking at a huge pool of voters, who make their choices on really shallow considerations, like who's being talked about more on Chris Matthews, or who got the most good headlines recently. Hillary's entire campaign has been geared toward that crowd: say things the pundits like, get their praise, get good headlines, inflate your poll numbers, create the image of inevitability, depress turn-out for other candidates.

It's a smart strategy, but you're confusing the causal chain here.

A lot of people read that Hillary is "ahead" in the "horserace". Then they get asked who they support. They say something like, "er, Hillary, I guess". Then they get asked all sorts of questions about the candidates, and project good qualities on that candidate because it's the candidate they chose.

This isn't tough. The consistent theme in Iowa has been that the more narrow the voter pool, the worse Hillary does. Not surprising that we see the same dynamic in the nation writ large. Expand from "likely Dem primary voters" to "Dems and Dem leaning independents", and Hillary jumps from 35-40 to 47-52. On no! Luckily for everyone not named Hillary Clinton, 90% of Democrats and almost no Dem-leaning independents vote in the Democratic primary. So who cares?

As mopper points out, this poll is basically worthless. It's a random sample of adults, not a sample of likely voters, or even a sample of registered voters.

The more people who hear speaches like the one Sen Obama gave yesterday, The more the polls will change in his favor.

Can you read the text of that speach and the one he gave in 2002 and still not think he is the best candidate running?

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Hillary claims that her time as First Lady makes her the most experienced candidate. So, shouldn't she be willing to have that record out in the open. If so, why is she opposing making the records public? Hillary's approach to governing is Cheney-Lite. Just like the energy task force, her health task force was a model of a closed process.

Here's to open government for an open society. Hopefully the contrasts between good judgment and open government with Hillary's track record of poor judgment and closed processes gets out to the voters. Obama seems to be starting to get across in Iowa. We'll see how it goes in the next steps in the sequence.

A CORPORATE media outlet finds that Corporate Conspirator Clinton is all peachy-keen . . . Leaving me with the same running question:

Just who in the hell are the Corporate media sponsored pollsters questioning?

Here in Southern California/Los Angeles Region, Clinton's positive feedback can be summed up with the statement, "Well . . . IF she's THE nominee, of course, I'll vote for her becuase there is no way I'm voting for a Republican." AND THOSE ARE HER SUPPORTERS . . .

Frankly, the french cuffs on Biden's shirts get warmer reviews . . .

"Poll: Outright Majority of Democrats Back Hillary"
In more important news, those who will be voting in a few months want more in depth coverage of detailed plans on how to get the US back on the right track. If the candidates have no details, keep putting them on the spot. Or, just continue to "report" on polls and money. Oh yeah, and don't forget to appear reluctant to "report" on horse-race issues, and remind us how, unfortunately, it is important in reality of modern campaigns. Give me back my press.

LongTom wrote on October 3, 2007 10:25 AM: So, Hillary boosters, how do you feel about her vote in favor of the bombing of Iran? She's the only candidate to vote in favor of classifying the Iranian military as a terrorist organization, and this is all the excuse Cheney needs to send the bombers.

She's now voted to enable TWO Republican wars. Congratulations!

That is a tired and lonely voice in the wilderness, if there ever was one. For the last time: The regular voters understand that this is GWB's war and HRC is no hawk (defined by the lefties as enyone to the right of Wellstone or Feingold). The AUMF vote matters only to the lefties and netroots, who are but a small minority of the electorate, though the loudest and most "passionate." I have now said this ad nauseam but it has apparently fallen on deaf ears. Try something else, will ya? The AUMF screed and the harping on HRC's vote on the ceremonial, "saber-rattling" bill dubbed the "Authorization to Invade Iran" by TPM (that even Sens. Levin and Durbin, the uber-doves, had voted FOR after having against the AUMF) is mindless.

(I have posted most of the following in an other thread very vert early this morning, but it seems more germane here)

Here's what we can deduce, for the time being, from this WaPo/ABC News poll that is sure to deflate even the most ardent and optimitistic of Obama and Edwards supporters. I suggest you stay away for a few days until this blows over...if it will. The tsunami has picked up steam since HRC's Sunday Talk show blitz (as I had predicted it would) and now she is leading Obama by a staggering 33% (53-20) nationally. For her to get over 50% support in a field of some 8 candidates is astounding, especially since, due to her purported 'high negatives', her support was supposed to be stuck in the 40's, making her virtually unelectable. This poll debunks all of the arguments that have been advanced against the Clinton candidacy:

(1) her vote on the war would hurt her: 52% trust her more on Iraq v. 22% for Obama;

(2) she has 'high negatives': she has 53% support in a field of 8 candidates v. 20% for Obama, who has the next highest level of support;

(3) she is 'unelectable': 57% think that she is the most electable Dem v. 20 % and 17% for Edwards and Obama, respectively. This one of Obama's main "problems": He is black and unelectable in 2008 America, as I had argued before, despite claims to the contrary. This poll shows that, deep down where no one can see, most people think that he is the least electable Dem, just as I had suggested;
(4) "HillaryCare" as a negative: 66% trust her on healthcare compared to 15 and 14 % for Obama and Edwards. I guess they figure that she has been there, even if it did not turn out great, she showed 'leadership' and gained 'experience' from it. That her new plan was generally well received helped convey this view;
(5) she represents the past: 45% say she is the 'agent of change' v. 31 for Obama. I think that Obama misinterpreted the meaning of "change": for most voters, it seems to me that this means "change" from the Bush years, and not "change" in Dem policies and ideals, which all the candidates pretty much share. Therefore leadership and experience to implement these Dem policies and ideals become key, and this poll shows that. A novice won't be trusted with such an ominous task, especially considering the shape Bush is sure tp leave the country in after he, finally, exits the scene 16 months from now;
(6) strength and experience: no contest: 62% v. 14% and 9% for Edwards and Obama. This. along with leadership, will be the determining factors. I think that now that the "hype" is over, it is beginning to crystallize in people's minds that it would be risky to trust someone who was a little known state senator only 4 years ago, to become the leader of free world. Put that with the fact that he is a black man in 2008 America and the odds are not favorable – double whammy! The Dems will lose if Obama, who I would gladly support, is the nominee;
(7) leadership: no contest: 60% v. 20% and 13% for Obama and Edwards;
(8) her support is soft: she gets more support from all the demographic groups and is more strongly supported by those who now back her by 61% v. 52% for Obama...
There was not a single 'negative' facet in the level of support that HRC is enjoying at the moment.
Unless her opponents can do something to shake things up (she won't make any mistakes), these opinions will solidify and it will be over before it even starts...the usual caveat about Iowa and New Hampshire being unpredictable notwithstanding; we are dealing with a campaign so thoroughly savvy that the usual caveats probably won't apply: It has thus for defied every prediction, as listed above.

A few months ago I was completely neutral on the race (I was hoping Al Gore would run). But I have become more and more impressed with Senator Clinton’s tough minded realism, intellectual discipline, communication skills and command of the issues. She is clearly the most qualified person in either party to be a highly effective president. She may the only person in recent American history to come into the office with both intimate knowledge of how the Presidency actually operates and an excellent working knowledge of Congress. She is also our most skilled and battle tested campaigner, as shown in her two New York Senate races. John Edwards by contrast has lamentable political skills—he’s running 18 points behind Clinton in home state—no name recognition factor there. That Clinton is getting support from prominent business leaders, even former Bush fund raisers-( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119127620102645595.html) even though she has one of the most liberal voting records of all the candidates running is solid evidence that she can indeed bridge partisan divisions, while standing up for progressive effective government. Don’t think Hillary is a progressive? Well as her predecessor once said “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.” Here is a table I created from Progressive Punch’s rankings of all current members of Congress. This is based on votes on issues in nearly 160 different categories:
Name Overall Score Rank in Senate House
Biden 84.43 31/100
Clinton 91.88 14/100
Dodd 86.96 26/100
Kucinich 87.41 119/433
Obama 90.60 20/100

Here’s how she compares with John Edwards in Charles Green’s August 30, 2004 article in the National Journal: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm
Life Time Averages
13. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. (2000) 83.9
27. John Edwards, D-N.C. (1998) 75.7

Finally, the major emotional reason why I have swung firmly into the Clinton Camp is my revulsion toward irrational ignorance of her so-called progressive detractors. I have been observing hard left wingers for more than 40 years and my father—a Henry Wallace supporter in ’48—before me and they never change. They have no grasp of politics, no understanding of history and always put their own psychological comfort –ideological purity—ahead of meeting the needs of real people or solving major national problems. Well, to paraphrase a very great Democrat who had a lot of grief from the Left in his time, Senator Clinton will win the election and will make those Republicans and Neo Naderites like it!

The primary campaign is finally beginning, as is traditional, in the fall months before the actual voting early next year.

If I am in the Hillary camp, I will shout loud and clear that this traditional campaign season is not relevant, given the polling already done which 'proves' inevitability. Any campaigning during this season must be muted in order to not 'destroy our own' [ala michaele gold] 'inevitable' candidate.

If I am not in the Hillary camp, I will shout loud and clear that this traditional campaign season is exactly the time to sharpen awareness and define the contrast between candidates, lest we find ourselves once again failing to distinguish machined 'perception' from its democratic, grass roots alternative.

I guess you want another Republican president and ultimately a completely conservative supreme court. Will you be happy then? If so, keep it up. Create a nice negative narrative for the Republican machine to destroy us with.

Such utter gibberish...

Reductio ad absurdum: A Republican Congress impleached Bill Clinton, and HRC is so despised by the rightwingnuts that they have been using her as a fund-raising tool. On which planet, then, would a sane person believe that the Clintons are somehow "in bed" with the Repubs?

You are obviously so far to the left that anyone to your right or reliably just left of center (like myself) would seem like a Republican. I despise Republicanism, as embodied by its current standard-bearers and loudest activists (read: neo-cons). I do not despise Republicans in general, however, as I know many socially as decent folks.

A couple interesting things about the poll. The percentage of dems/dem-leaning who say they are watching very or somewhat closely is already over 70! And the "strong" support for HRC is 62, as opposed to Barack's 51.

I don't know how much to make of the inclusion of Dem-leaning voters in this poll. Is there any commentary on the topic anyone could suggest?

This is yet more GREAT news for those of us who support Senator Hillary Clinton.

Donna G,
I pointed out (on that other post) that all you seem to do is knock Hillary's "lack of experience" when comparing her experience to your candidate's vastly more superior experience.

However, you still haven't actually told us who your vastly more experienced candidate IS!

As I said, you are an extremely demanding voter and I'd like to know who you BACK, not just who you attack.

So I'll be waiting to know who your vastly more experienced candidate is, so I can have the opportunity to compare that vast experience to HRC's, whose experience you quickly dismissed as simply "fluff."

DonnaG et al

Sorry to take up more bandwidth on this, but for the edification of anyone who cares, here is the list of what she's dismissed as "generalities" about Hillary's experience and her Senate leadership on issues that I gave DonnaG in response to her questions about them and her challenge to a Hillary supporter to supply them.

Judge for yourself.

RE: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political experience:

Worked as an activist in Illinois and Arkansas (Remember Bill campaigning on Hillary's activism - "Get Two For the Price of One"?)

Worked on Bill's campaigns for governor
Was First Lady of Arkansas

Worked on Bill's presidential campaigns
As First Lady, she headed the ill-fated (but right-hearted) healthcare initiative and continued advocating for the successful S-CHIP program.

Endured and pushed back on the Right Wing Slime Machine for over 16 years. She’s fully vetted.

Won election to the Senate twice. In her first Senate speech she outlined 5 healthcare proposals that she would support

Now heads a disciplined campaign that will likely carry her to be the first woman President in our glorious history.

RE Leadership on Issues in the Senate:

As Senator, she introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill

Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.

Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.

Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate

Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.

Now I admit that may not seem like much to you, but this is just from part of 2007.

Oh, and here’s a little more re Senator Clinton's Senate service:

She sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees, sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

These are what DonnaG dismisses as generalities. Well, DonnaG - What Jan said. What are your candidates more specific credentials in these areas?

Jan:

As per the other thread, three times Michael made a quite reasonable request for any Hillary supporter to actually name 2-3 things from Hillary's senate career which would offer evidence of leadership abilities. After his third request received only generalities or red herrings about non-senate history, I interjected myself to speak to the phenomenon of the Hillary camp wrapping itself in fluff and generalities, which phenomenon I think is significant in itself in what it may represent in terms of running a media campaign on 'image' [vs 'substance'].

Contrary to your twisting about on this, I was not per se typing to knock Hillary's experience, though I myself have found her senate record thin to mediocre, and said so. I was underscoring your, colon's and the Hillary campaign's unwillingness or inability to give clear answers to anyone who wishes to have facts upon which to base their upcoming voter decisions.

Geez, Jan, you are saying that someone who prefers facts to generalites is an extremely demanding voter???

Here are the candidates I want to see win, in order of preference, at this beginning of the home stretch period of the campaigning: 1]Obama, 2]Edwards, 3]Richardson, 4]Biden. The first two preferences are based upon who I think could bring actual change relevant to what our country most needs, the second two are based upon who I think has the most experience under their belts relevant to the demands of the presidency.

Donna G,
When you are the one who gets to define "facts" then I guess you get to accuse me of having the "unwillingness or inability to give clear answers to anyone who wishes to have facts upon which to base their upcoming voter decisions."

But that doesn't make it true.

We gave you lists and lists and lists of Clinton's experience, based on committee assignments, co-sponsorships of legislation, elections, and so on and so forth.
But The Judge said, "FLUFF!"

So, should I just slink away, based on your OPINION?

No, I've very proud of my candidate.
And I'm never proud of anyone in the political arena who spews negative crap about candidates, instead of advocating for one. It's destructive to ALL of our candidates.

So... regarding MY inability to give clear answers about Clinton's experience?
You aren't even asking for experience from Obama and Edwards.
Doesn't that seem a little weird to you, considering all the grief you give Clinton supporters about her "lack" of experience?

You MIGHT support Obama or Edwards because, in your OPINION, they might bring change?
I guess the first woman President in the history in the United States of America isn't change enough.
oh.kay.

Richardson and Biden have great experience, but they don't seem to be getting much traction.
Since my candidate right now is leading in every conceivable measurable measure, and trending UPWARD, maybe you would make better use of your time advocating for them, instead of telling Clinton supporters how unhappy you are with our attempts to answer you in a manner that meets your particular needs.
Just a thought.

DCS -- before you are reflexively rude, read my post again. I DID NOT say that the two numbers contradict each other. I said there were a "couple" AKA two that stood out. Frankly it was a pro-Hillary post: more people (according to the poll) ARE paying attention to the race this early, and more of Hillary's supporters are willing to identify themselves as "strong" supporters than Obama's, contra the theory that people are responding "Oh, Hillary, I guess."

Get a grip. And stop assuming you know what anyone says before you read their post.

Jan and colonpowwow, the question was one of accomplishments, not bland issues that she worked on along with just about every other Democrat.

What has Hillary achieved besides getting elected and supporting already popular items?

What meaningful bill has she authored or championed that got enacted despite opposition?

Where has Hillary shown Leadership as opposed to just jumping on the bandwagon after it was halfway down the parade path?

So far you have shown nothing of the sort. Just bland bs that shows little Leadership but a lot of following others.

This thread has the best discussion of the candidates merrits I have seen on these boards. Even some of the posters who regularly resort to trollish insults are sticking to a debate on the issues. Let's have more of that.

"I guess the first woman President in the history in the United States of America isn't change enough.
oh.kay." - says Jan.

Hmmmm, anyone except a sexist would consider that a minor, even empty, 'symbol of change' in the context of the real changes needed on behalf of both sexes and all races and income levels to clean up money in politics, Washington deadlock, the Iraq mess, America's decline in the world, infrastructure deterioration, poverty, lack of health care, and a host of other pressing problems.

But, hey, some women evidently need symbols to wrap themselves in before they can walk out the door and advance to less egocentric concerns.

All other things being equal, and myself being a woman, I think it could be fine to have a woman president. With this particular woman, though, and setting aside the whole topic of whether she has 'leadership' abilities, I worry about her judgment in dealing with foreign heads of state. We are painfully aware that she has already been deceived by two US presidents.

But shallow changes like 'first woman president' or 'first black president' or 'first latino president' or 'first Morman president' aren't motivational or operative to me. What might motivate me is if you could distill from your list of generalities 2-3 real researchable [that means provide identifying names, and dates] instances of Hillary's senate record that would demonstrate distinctive [beyond what's expected] leadership on national issues.

Wrong, colon, the original request was to name 2-3 instances of Hillary's leadership in the senate, i.e., in the only role she's ever held as anyone's elected representative. U.S. Senator is the only elected office she has held, and it is exactly where folks need to seek facts about her leadership or lack of it.

You are again avoiding being truthful by your obvious segue around the original request. However, I see that you are being consistent with the Hillary campaign strategy of adding fluffy unverifiable padding to her resume to create an image of 'leadership' where none may exist.

I'm looking forward to the Hillary - Obama Act of 2008, you know, the primaries.

Yes, I admit it. She just sucks as a politician. That's partially why she's struggling so much against about 8 excellent candidates for the nomination, I guess.

Okay, I admit it. Hillary ain't done squat politically for 30 years (I did mention that the list of legislation I cited was just from a brief period in 2007, didn't I?) - she probably didn't do much more in her six previous years in the Senate anyway. Major lightweight that Hillary. Cold and calculating too.

Well, I guess she sure has most Democratic voters, her colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, labor unions, and that stoopid ole' Wesley Clark fooled. What a master magician! That trick alone is almost worthy of a vote, don't you think? Think of the wool she could pull over the eyes of other world leaders!

Honestly, is this a Democratic site or did I wander onto Redstate by accident?

I credit Obama for all his accomplishments and inspiriational work and words. Any of you have anything good to say about the frontrunner in the Democratic Party these days?

Why, thank you Dave. I knew a classy guy like Obama would have a supporter here who would be able to go beyond minimizing Hillary's accomplishments and advocacy.

I agree that Obama is a wondeful leader and an impressive man and I'll be proud to support him if he pulls off the upset, or in his 2016 presidential run after Hillary sets the table for him.

Now one of my bullet points re Hillary's experience (that was gleefully minimized as irrellevant)was "worked as an advocate in Illinois and Arkansas." I should have said "Washington and Arkansas." Anyhow, here's what being an advocate brings to the table. I think you'll agree it's impressive.

After graduating from Yale Law School, she became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. In 1973, she became a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee working, ironically, on helping them to consider impeachment of President Nixon.

In 1975, she married Bill and moved to Arkansas. Her first job there was running a legal aid clinic handling foster care and child abuse cases.

At the age of 30, President Carter appointed her to the Board of the US Legal Services Corporation - a non-profit program that funds legal assistance to the poor.

As First Lady of Arkansas, she led a task force on improving education and served on the Board of Directors of three national organizations: The Children's Defense Fund, Child Care Action Campaign, and Children's Television Workshop.

As a lawyer, she chaired the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession. She was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.

Thanks for letting me expand on two of the bullet points re Hillary's experience and qualifications that I listed earlier to waves of derision.

Amd again, thanks for being a classy guy, like your chosen candidate.